[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 78 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 0: 10 -cv -6 23 69 -J IC ; 0: 10 -cr- 60 05 0- JI C-1 LOUIS W EEKS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Resp on de nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, FAY, andEDMONDSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: App el la ntLou is W eek s ap pe al s t he de ni al of h is m ot io n t o v acat e h is Case: 11-14781 Date Filed: 07/24/2012 Page: 1 of 5fed eral sen te nc e, pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5. We gran te d acert ifi cat e o f

ap pe al ab il ity

on th e fo ll owi ng is su e: “ Whe th er the di st ric t co urt erredin de te rm in in g t ha t co un se l’s fa il ur e to fil e a n ot ic e o f ap pe al was n otin effe ct iv e as si st an ce? Se e Roe v. Flo res- Ort ega , 52 8 U.S. 4 70 , 12 0 S . Ct. 1 02 9, 1 45 L. Ed. 2d98 5 (2 00 0) ; Th omp so n v . Uni te d Sta tes , 50 4 F .3d12 03 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ).” W eek s ar gu es on ap pe al th athi s co un se l p ro vi de d i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e b ecau se he fai le d t o fi le a no ti ce o f ap pe al aft er Weeks in st ru ct edhi m to do so , andth at W eek s wo ul d h av e p ur su edanap pe al ha d h is co un se l ad equa te ly con su lt edwith hi m . Ina § 2 25 5 p ro ceed in g, “ we rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s l eg al co nc lu si on s de no vo an d fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r.” Devin e v. Uni te d Sta tes , 52 0 F .3d12 86 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Whe th er co un se l was in effe ct iv e is a m ix edqu es ti on of l aw an d fa ctth atwe rev ie w de no vo . Id. “ W e al lo t s ub st an ti al de fere nc e to th e fact fin de r in reac hi ng cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns with re sp ectto witne ss te st im on y .” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d e ll ip si s o m it te d) . To p rev ai l o n a n i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l cl ai m , a pa rty m us t es tabl is h t ha t (1 ) hi s co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie ntan d (2 ) th athe su ffer ed pr ejud ic e as a res ul t o f th atde fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce. Stri ckl an d v . W as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 66 8, 6 87 , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 05 2, 2 06 4, 8 0 L. Ed. 2 d 6 74 (19 84 ). The Stri ckl an d tes t 2 Case: 11-14781 Date Filed: 07/24/2012 Page: 2 of 5al so ap pl ie s t o c la im s fo r in effe ct iv e as si st an ce b as edon th e fai lu re t o fi le a no ti ce

of ap pe al . Flo res- Ort ega , 52 8 U.S. at47 6- 77 , 12 0 S . Ct. at10 34 . Becau se th e m ov in g p arty

be ars th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng a ri gh t t o re li ef i n h ab eas pr oc eed in gs , when “ co un se l ca nn otreca ll sp eci fic s ab ou t h is act io ns du e to th e pa ss ag e o f ti m e an d fa de d m em ory , we pre su m e co un se l p erfo rm edreas on ab ly and ex erci se d re as on ab le pro fes si on al jud gm en t.” Bla nk en sh ip v. Hal l , 54 2 F .3d12 53 , 12 74 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 co nt ex t); cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S . Ct. 1 04 1 (2 01 1) . W it h re sp ectto th e p erfo rm an ce p ro ng , an a tt orne y who fai ls to fol lo w hi s cl ie nt ’s sp eci fic in st ru ct io ns to fil e a n ot ic e o f ap pe al act s i n apro fes si on al ly un reas on ab le m anne r. Flo res- Ort ega , 52 8 U.S. at47 7, 1 20 S. Ct. at10 35 . By th e sa m e lo gi c, a cl ie ntcan no t l at er cl ai m th athi s at to rn ey

was d efi ci en t i n fa il in g t o fil e anap pe al when th e cl ie ntex pl ic it ly ins tru ct edhi s at to rn ey no t t o fi le an ap pe al . Id. In t he ab se nc e o f sp eci fic in st ru ct io ns , an a tt orne y ha s a c on st itut io na l du ty to co ns ul t wi th hi s cl ie ntab ou t an ap pe al when (1) a rat io na l d efen da ntwou ld wan t t o app eal , or (2 ) th e d efen da ntreas on ab ly dem on st rat edto co un se l an in te res t in see ki ng anap pe al . Id

. at 4 80 , 12 0 S . Ct. at10 36 . Adequa te co ns ul ta ti on requi res th e fo ll owi ng : (1 ) “ in fo rm in g acli en t ab ou t h is rig htto ap pe al ”; (2 ) “ advi si ng th e cl ie ntab ou t the adva nt ag es an d d is adva nt ag es of t ak in g an 3 Case: 11-14781 Date Filed: 07/24/2012 Page: 3 of 5ap pe al ”; an d (3 ) “ m ak in g areas on ab le effo rt t o d et erm in e whe th er the cli en t

wis he s t o p ur su e anap pe al , reg ard le ss of t he m eri ts of s uc h an app eal .” Th omp so n , 50 4 F .3dat 1 20 6. An y waiv er o f th e ri gh t t o app eal m us t b e kno win g an d v ol un ta ry . Id. at 1 20 6- 07 . W it h re sp ectto th e p reju di ce p ro ng , th e m ov an t m us t es tabl is h t ha t, h adhe rece iv edreas on ab le advi ce fr om hi s at to rn ey

ab ou t an ap pe al , he wo ul d h av e in st ru ct edhi s at to rn ey

to fil e anap pe al . Flo res- Ort ega , 52 8 U.S. at48 6, 1 20 S. Ct . at 1 03 9. Whil e “ sh owi ng no nf riv ol ou s g ro un ds forap pe al m ay gi ve weig htto th e co nt en ti on th atth e d efen da ntwou ldha ve ap pe al ed ,” th e m ov an t n eedon ly sh ow tha t, b utforhi s at to rn ey ’s def ic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce, h e wou ldha ve ap pe al ed . Id. at48 6, 1 20 S. Ct. at10 39 -4 0. The di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t b as edon cred ib il ity de te rm in at io ns , cou ns el di sc us se d wi th W eek s o pt io ns to reduc e h is sen te nc e; th atco un se l t ol d Week s h e co ul d n otap pe al an d c oo pe rat e wit h t he go ve rn m en t atth e sa m e ti m e; th atco un se l to ldW eek s h is be stop ti on was t o p ur su e co op erat io n; an d t ha t Weeks th erea fte r de ci de d t o p ur su e co op erat io n wi th th e g ov ern m en t ra th er than a n app eal . The di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs were n otcle arl y erro ne ou s. Thus , we con cl ud e fro m th e rec or d tha t co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was no t d efi ci en t b ecau se he co ns ul te d with Week s ab ou t wh ethe r to tak e anap pe al an d m ad e a rea so nabl e eff ort t o 4 Case: 11-14781 Date Filed: 07/24/2012 Page: 4 of 5de te rm in e an d c arry outW eek s’s wi sh es . Th omp so n , 50 4 F .3dat 1 20 6.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d en y in g Week s’s § 22 55 m ot io n. AFFIRMED.

5 Case: 11-14781 Date Filed: 07/24/2012 Page: 5 of 5